ANALYSIS  OF  SCHOOL  EXPENSES 


OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


Report  to  the  Board  of  Directors 


of 


The  Merchants’  Association  of  New  York, 


DECEMBER  \9f  1900. 


Approved  by  Unanimous  Vote  of  Twelve  Directors  and 
Ordered  Published  After  Verification  by 
a  Special  Committee. 


New  York,  Dec.  19,  1900. 

To  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Merchants  Association  of  New  York . 

Gentlemen  In  a  previous  report  to  you  the  assertion  was  made 
that  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  acts  upon  the  City 
Budget  and  votes  appropriations  without  having  full  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  foi  the  reason  that  >  the  present  defective  system  makes  such 
knowledge  difficult  and  often  impossible  to  obtain,  and  in  consequence 
that  Board  is  compelled  to  depend  upon  the  verbal  statements  of 
department  heads. 

The  examples  that  follow  are  cited  to  show 

1.  That  the  official  reports  of  the  Board  of  Education  are  especially 

defective  in  data  relating  to  average  attendance,  which  is 
either  the  statutory  or  actual  basis  of  appropriation  and 
apportionment,  and  which  greatly  affects  the  amounts  of 
specific  outlays  ; 

2.  That  such  data  of  attendance  as  are  given  are  inaccurate  and 

conti adictory,  and  therefore  unreliable;  they  are  defective 
because  they  lack  comprehensive  exhibits  of  details ;  because 
the  details  given  are  not  usefully  digested  or  classified  ;  and 
because  their  sums  total  do  not  produce  the  aggregates  else¬ 
where  stated  as  resulting  from  them  ; 

3.  That  estimates  submitted  by  the  Board  of  Education  to  the 

Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  are  in  part  based  upon 
inaccurate  data  which  overstate  the  average  attendance ;  that 
the  estimates  for  supplies  assume  the  previous  year’s  outlay 
as  a  correct  basis,  when  it  is  in  fact  incorrect  and  excessive  ; 
that  the  estimates  of  probable  increase  in  attendance  are  like¬ 
wise  excessive  ;  and  that  a  progressive  and  cumulative 
increase  in  the  annual  outlay  for  supplies  may  be  effected 
without  being  subjected  to  real  scrutiny,  and  without  obvious 
appearance  of  disproportion ; 

4.  That  the  current  estimates  for  supplies,  which  assume  last  years’ 

outlays  as  a  basis,  allow  $3.38^  per  capita  for  new  scholars, 
while  the  actual  per  capita  cost  last  year  was  but  #2.02, 
according  to  the  published  reports  of  the  Board  of  Education  ; 

5*  That  the  current  estimates  for  supplies  assume  an  increase  in 
attendance  in  Manhattan  about  three  times  as  great  as  the 
normal  increase  and  four  times  as  great  as  the  officially  stated 


deduced  not  from  previous  attendance  and  annual  increase  of 
population,  but  from  the  capacity  of  new  schoolhouses,  which 
will  be  occupied  in  large  part  by  scholars  already  enrolled 
and  attending  the  public  schools,  in  temporary  rented  prem¬ 
ises,  which  the  new  .buildings  will  displace  ;  that  while  official 
data  of  school  population  and  its  increase  show  an  estimate 
of  5  per  cent,  increase  in  attendance  to  be  excessively  liberal, 
the  estimates  for  supplies  ask  for  26  per  cent,  increase  in  the 
appropriation  to  provide  for  the  increased  attendance  ; 

6.  That  the  outlay  for  general  supplies,  repairs,  fuel,  lighting  and 

janitor  service  is  extremely  disproportionate  as  between  the 
Borough  of  Manhattan  and  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  on  the 
bases  of  equivalent  results  or  equal  services,  and  that  there 
is  a  similar  disproportion  as  between  the  various  schools, 
especially  in  Manhattan  ; 

7.  That  the  printed  estimates  in  the  Budget  contain  no  data  that 

will  enable  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  to 
readily  discover  the  discrepancies  cited  ;  that  they  cannot  test 
questionable  items,  because  they  cannot  segregate  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  cost,  and  therefore  cannot  compare  the  results  of  a 
given  outlay  with  the  results  of  other  outlays  for  identical 
purposes  under  equivalent  conditions  ;  and,  to  sum  up,  that 
every  essential  of  effective  audit  and  scrutiny  is  omitted. 
Because  of  these  omissions  the  printed  reports  of  the  Board 
of  Education  have  no  statistical  or  actuarial  value  whatever. 
They  contain  no  proper  schedules  or  exhibits  of  details,  no 
lucid  digests,  few  needful  or  verifiable  aggregates,  and  no 
clear  summaries.  They  neither  exhibit  nor  explain.  As 
serious  statements  of  the  business  affairs  of  a  great  corpora¬ 
tion  they  are  mere  travesties. 

Some  of  the  conditions  of  fact  upon  which  the  foregoing  proposi¬ 
tions  rest  are  set  forth  below  in  detail. 

Until  the  present  year  the  estimates  of  the  departments  have  not 
been  in  printed  form.  They  have  occupied  many  thousand  typewritten 
pages,  and  it  was  therefore  a  physical  impossibility  to  examine  them 
readily  and  with  proper  care.  The  people  of  this  city  owe  Comptroller 
Coler  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  compelling  a  reform  in  this  respect.  This 
year,  for  the  first  time,  the  City  Budget  has  been  submitted  to  the 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  in  printed  form  and  with  some 
semblance  of  logical  arrangement,  whereby  the  various  estimates  may 
be  partially  scrutinized.  I  am  under  deep  obligation  to  the  Comptroller 

4 


distribution,  and  without  which  no  useful  examination  can  be  made. 

The  valuable  beginning"  thus  made  is  the  more  deserving  of  praise 
because  of  the  exceeding  difficulty  of  the  task,  incident  to  harmonizing 
into  one  workable  system  the  chaotic  accounts  of  more  than  ninety 
sepal  ate  municipal,  village,  town  and  school  corporations  merged  in  the 
consolidated  city.  But  the  admirable  results  already  gained  by  the 
Comptrollers  logical  and  analytical  methods  only  emphasize  the  need 
o  going  further  on  the  same  lines.  There  are  still  many  defects  which 
readily  conceal  waste.  Some  of  these  exist  because  the  Comptroller  has 
not  the  legal  power  to  correct  them.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  annual 
report  of  the  Board  of  Education,  whose  accounts  are  not  subject  to 
audit  m  detail  by  the  Comptroller,  and  whose  estimates  and  reports  are 
not  in  such  foi  m  as  to  make  thorough  scrutiny  practicable. 

Because  of  the  legal  powerlessness  of  the  Comptroller  to  check 
wasteful  outlays  of  whose  character  he  is  aware,  this  city  suffers  heavily. 

I  have  personally  inspected  a  large  number  of  bills  on  file  in  the  Con¬ 
troller  s  office  whose  original  amounts  were  largely  in  excess  of  the 
market  value  of  the  articles  and  the  services  charged  for.  These  large 
overcharges  were  pursuant  to  agreements  or  contracts  entered  into  by 
city  officials  under  statutory  provisions  which  enable  them  to  commit 
the  city  to  the  payment  of  such  obligations.  The  Comptroller  cannot 
successfully  resist  payment  unless  he  can  prove  intent  to  defraud.  The 
only  effective  protection  which  he  can  afford  the  city’s  interests  is  to 

delay  payment  and  through  such  delay  force  a  partial  reduction  from 
the  overcharges. 

While  this  particular  form  of  waste  of  the  people’s  money  is  not 
legal  fraud,  it  is  fraud  in  its  essence.  Because  the  Comptroller  is  unable 
to  prevent  it  under  existing  conditions,  it  is  desired  to  appeal  to  the 
Legislature  for  the  necessary  statutes  to  cure  this  evil.  The  city  now 
loses  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  annually  by  it.  The  proofs 
will  be  forthcoming  whenever  the  public  wishes  them. 

I  have,  awaiting  your  inspection  and  action,  further  examples  of 
extreme  wastefulness  and  of  a  probable  fraud  in  the  city’s  revenues.  I 
am  prepaied  to  point  out  in  one  bureau  alone  a  waste  of  nearly  60  per 
cent,  m  salaries  of  somewhat  more  than  $ 200,000 ,  and  to  demonstrate  the 
waste  by  showing  conclusively  that  not  only  equal  but  more  efficient 

service  has  been  rendered  for  less  than  one-quarter  of  the  amount  so 
paid. 

I  respectfully  request  that  you  will  take  decisive  action  upon  these 
matters  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment,  for  the  reason  that  in  case 
it  is  not  deemed  wise  for  this  Association  to  enter  upon  them  it  is  my 
purpose  to  at  once  arrange  otherwise  for  their  proper  disposal  in  the 
public  inteiest.  Respectfully  submitted, 

Frederick  B.  De  Berard. 


The  validity  of  specific  outlays  for  specific  purposes  can  only  be  tested  by  a  comparison  with  other 
outlays  for  similar  purposes  made  under  similar  conditions.  There  are  19 1  separate  school  premises 
occupied  by  schools  in  Manhattan  and  132  in  Brooklyn.  The  amount  of  outlay  proper  for  each  of  these 
(aside  from  that  required  for  teachers)  is  contingent  wholly  upon  the  capacity,  character  and  equipment 
of  the  respective  buildings  and  upon  the  number  of  scholars  in  attendance.  The  proper  measure  of 
capacity  is  the  number  of  sittings  and  classrooms;  the  relative  economy  is  affected  by  the  equipment,  and 
the  number  of  scholars  is,  of  course,  shown  by  the  record  of  attendance.  The  Special  School  Fund  of  more 
than  $4,500,000  is  divided  among  these  323  school  premises  in  21  distinct  schedules.  Each  of  these 
schedules  is  isolated  from  the  others.  Nowhere  in  the  estimates  or  reports  are,  the  amounts  apportioned 
to  each  school  under  the  respective  schedules  collated  and  reduced  to  an  aggregate.  Nowhere  are  the 
outlays  of  the  various  schools  so  collated  that  they  can  be  compared  with  the  outlays  of  other 
schools  for  similar  purposes.  Above  all,  they  are  nowhere  brought  into  comparison  for  test  purposes  with 
the  data  which  should  control  the  outlays,  namely,  with  the  measure  of  the  capacity  of  the  school  and  the 
results  as  shown  by  the  attendance.  The  statements  of  average  attendance  are  contradictory  and  wholly 
unreliable,  This  is  shown  by  the  analysis  in  detail  which  follows  in  Sec.  VII.  of  this  report.  There 
is  no  detailed  schedule  of  the  number  of  sittings  in  the  various  schools.  As  it  is  therefore  impossible  to 
learn  with  exactitude  the  relative  capacity  of  the  various  schools,  the  proper  demands  of  each  for  fuel, 
lighting,  janitor  service  and  general  repairs  cannot  be  ascertained. 

The  only  clue  to  capacity  which  these  extraordinary  public  reports  supply  is  a  statement  of  the  total 
number  of  sittings,  whose  form  and  manifest  omissions  make  it  of  questionable  value.  It  is  a  very  flimsy  basis, 
but  such  as  it  is  it  is  the  sole  basis  by  which  the  validity  of  the  estimates  for  the  Special  School  Fund  con¬ 
tained  in  the  printed  Budget  of  the  current  year  and  controlling  the  proposed  disbursement  of  $4,641,890 
can  be  even  partially  tested.  It  does  not  permit  of  a  comparison  between  the  running  expenses  of  the 
respective  schools,  but  it  does  permit  of  a  comparison  of  the  aggregate  outlays  of  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn 
and  a  test  of  them  by  a  common  standard  deduced  from  the  number  of  sittings  stated  by  the  President  of 
the  Board  of  Education. 

The  following  analysis  of  certain  items  in  the  School  Budget  shows  that  for  seemingly  identical  results 
a  much  greater  outlay  is  made  in  Manhattan  than  in  Brooklyn.  The  data  that  establish  that  fact  are  all 
drawn  from  the  Reports  of  the  Board  of  Education  and  from  the  printed  Budget.  They  do  not,  however, 
appear  in  this  form,  nor  in  any  suitable  statistical  form.  They  are  not  collated,  but  are  widely  scattered 
in  separate  reports,  and  in  some  cases  require  long  computations.  But  until  they  have  been  so  collated  the 
items  of  the  Budget  cannot  be  analyzed  or  tested.  The  estimates  as  presented  to  the  Board  of  Estimate 
and  Apportionment  do  not  reveal  these  wide  differences  in  the  cost  of  equivalents  and,  of  course,  do  not 
explain  them.  That  is  to  say,  they  are  hidden  by  the  reports  whose  function  is  to  reveal  and  thereby  to 
prevent  such  differences.  The  data  of  the  reports  cannot  be  properly  sifted  and  collated  in  the  form 
necessary  to  test  the  items  of  the  School  Budget  without  many  days’  patient  labor  by  a  statistical  expert. 
Unless  this  is  done  by  some  one  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  must  of  necessity  vote  the 
appropriation  blindly. 

It  is  not  asserted  that  these  differences  cannot  be  explained,  but  that  they  arc  not  explained  ;  that  they 
are  not  easily  discoverable,  when  they  should  be  clearly  set  forth;  that  they  may  hide  waste,  and  that 
under^the  present  system  effective  scrutiny  by  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  is  extremely  diffi¬ 
cult  and,  therefore,  unlikely. 


6 


/ 


* 


TABLE  No.  I. 

COMPARATIVE  COSTS:  MANHATTAN 


AND  BROOKLYN. 

Comparison  Between  Equivalent  Units  for  Fiscal  Year  Ending 


Dec. 

Supplies  (Per  1,000  Pupils): 

3J  1899. 

Manhattan . 

Brooklyn . 

General  Repairs  (Per  1,000  Sittings)  : 

$2,155.29.  .  . 
r, 839. 92 

. .  Excess .  . . 

••  $3i5-37... 

.  i7¥ 

Manhattan . 

Brooklyn . 

Fuel  (Per  1,000  Sittings)  : 

$2, 118.53.  .  . 

1  >  5  5  9-  5° 

<  < 

•  •  $559.o3.  •  • 

•  351$ 

Manhattan . . . 

Brooklyn . . 

Lighting  (Per  1,000  Sittings)  : 

$615.80 . . . 
524.27 

<  ( 

..  $91.53... 

•  x7f$ 

Manhattan . 

Brooklyn . 

Janitors  (Per  1,000  Sittings)  : 

For  school  year  ending  July  31,  1899. 

$237.52.  .  . 
85.20 

<  4 

.  .  $152.32.. . 

CO 

cx|rfk 

Manhattan . 

Brooklyn . 

$I)395-5°  •  •  • 
898.48 

4  ( 

•  55i$ 

Citations  of  Official  Data  Upon  Which  the  Above  Comparison  Is  Based. 

As  all  the  foregoing  figures  are  deduced,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  them  by  citing  the  data  upon  which 
they  are  based.  They  are  therefore  given  below.  The  insufficiency  of  the  reports  could  not  be  more 
clearly  illustrated  than  by  tracing  the  steps  without  which  analysis  cannot  be  made,  and  which  are  required 
by  the  essential  omissions. 

Supplies. — Sec.  59  By-Laws  Board  of  Education  requires  an  annual  report  in  January  for  the 
preceding  calendar  year,  of  the  amount  of  supplies  furnished  each  school,  the  cost  per  pupil,  the  aggregate 
cost  of  supplies  as  compared  with  the  previous  year.  Sec.  62  provides  that  supplies  shall  be  distributed 
among  the  respective  schools  in  a  fixed  proportion  based  upon  attendance.  These  details  for  the  year 
ending  Dec.  31,  1899,  may  be  found  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of  Education  for  1899,  pages  109 
to  133.  Summaries  of  the  respective  aggregate  outlays  are  given  on  the  pages  named: 


Manhattan . $498,469.50  (Page  124) 

Brooklyn .  282,958.70  (Page  133) 


The  average  attendance  which  should  govern  the  distribution  of  these  supplies  is  not  stated  in  the 
aggregate.  To  ascertain  it,  about  500  separate  items  must  be  collated,  from  three  separate  schedules, 


7 


isolated  from  each  other,  and  distributed  through  25  pages;  16  long  columns  must  be  added,  and  the 
attendance  of  two  sub-classes  must  be  deduced  from  gross  figures  elsewhere  given  and  covering  a  different 
period.  These  details  may  be  found  on  the  pages  named  : 

Manhattan  :  (. Average  Attendance  Fiscal  Year.) 

Day  Schools,  Nos.  1  to  169.  (Aggregates  not  given;  deduced  by  adding  columns  of  details 


on  pages  iiotoiip.) . 214,946 

High  Schools,  Training  School  and  Truant  School,  (page  123) .  3, 930 

Evening  Schools  (page  17,  for  school  year  ending  July  31,  1899) .  12,401 


Total,  Manhattan . 231,277 


Brooklyn:  {Average  Attendance  Fiscal  Year.) 


Day  Schools,  Nos.  1  to  121, 
High  Schools,  Truant  School, 
Training  School, 


(  (Aggregate  not  given  ;  deduced  by  adding  columns  of 
(  details  on  pages  125  to  130) . 150,367 


Evening  Schools  (page  67  for  school  year  ending  July  31,  1899) 


3,464 


Total,  Brooklyn . 153,831 

The  average  attendance  cited  above  was  the  basis  for  the  distribution  of  supplies  ;  it  is  for  the  fiscal 
year  January-December,  1899.  It  is  considerably  greater  than  the  actual  average  for  the  school  year 
ending  July  31,  1900.  The  later  period  should  normally  have  the  larger  attendance.  An  analysis  of  the 
whole  subject  follows  in  Sec.  VII. 

Number  of  Sittings. — This  is  stated  in  aggregate  in  the  Report  of  the  President  of  the  Board  of 
Education,  addressed  to  the  Mayor,  under  date  July  31,  1899.  (Page  16  An.  Rept.  Board  of  Education.) 


Manhattan  and  The  Bronx . - .  232,931 

Brooklyn .  140,520 

No  detailed  statement  of  sittings  is  given. 

Janitor  Service. — For  School  Year  ending  July  31,  1899. 

Manhattan  (page  58) .  $325,074.12 

Brooklyn  (page  61) .  126,251.59 


This  does  not  include  extra  payments  to  janitors  for  evening  schools,  which  are  not  separated  from 
teachers’  salaries.  The  amount  is  small. 


Repairs,  Fuel  and  Lighting. — For  Fiscal  Year,  January-December,  1899. 

Manhattan:  (Pages  87  and  93,  Auditor’s  Report.) 

General  repairs . 

Fuel . 

Lighting . 

Brooklyn:  (Pages  88  and  95,  Auditor’s  Report.) 

General  repairs . 

Fuel . 

Lighting . 


$493,407.93 

143,420.00 

55,318.00 


$219,610.00 
73,661.00 
1 1,971.00 


Note. — Some  additions  to  the  number  of  sittings  stated  above  were  made  in  the  period  between  the 
close  of  the  school  year  and  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year.  The  number  is  not  stated  by  the  reports.  The 
deduced  outlay  per  thousand  sittings  is  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  outlay  for  the  fiscal  year  by  the 
number  of  sittings  reported  July  31st.  Because  of  the  discrepancy  in  the  periods,  the  true  figures  will 
vary  slightly  from  those  deduced,  but  the  relative  amounts  will  not  be  appreciably  affected. 


That  the  proportionate  outlay  for  the  items  cited  is  greater  in  Manhattan  than  in  Brooklyn  is  obvious 
from  the  foregoing  comparison.  Whether  the  difference  is  warrantable  cannot  be  accurately  learned  from 
any  exhibits  contained  in  the  reports  or  the  Budget. 


III.  GENERAL  REPAIRS. 

The  account  of  General  Repairs  is  wholly  blind.  It  cannot  be  analyzed.  The  current  Budget  calls  for 
nearly  $900,000.00  on  this  account  for  the  two  boroughs  under  Schedule  1,  pages  1366  to  1376.  The  nature 
of  this  Schedule  may  be  inferred  from  the  statement  that  under  the  head  “  Heating”  after  striking  out  the 
amounts  for  new  apparatus,  leaving  only  the  amounts  for  repairs  and  ordinary  replacement,  the  average 
amount  asked  for  Manhattan  is  $249.00  per  school,  as  against  $150.50  for  Brooklyn.  The  “Sanitary” 
account  is  even  more  questionable.  The  entire  Schedule  of  General  Repairs  deserves  the  severest  criticism. 
The  most  cursory  study  of  it  shows  that  it  readily  might,  and  probably  does,  cover  enormous  waste.  The 
estimate  for  the  current  year  cannot  be  analyzed  to  any  material  extent  by  comparison  between  the  several 
Borough  estimates,  but  some  useful  insight  can  be  gleaned  from  the  following  table: 


TABLE  No.  2. 

GENERAL  REPAIRS:  DISTRIBUTION 

OF  OUTLAY. 

Less  Than  $500. 


Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan 

.  18. . . 

...  $337-00 

“  “  Brooklyn  . . , 

. ii 3-  • 

<  4 

4  4 

88.50 

$500  and  Less  Than  $1,000. 

Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan.  . 

.  46... 

4  4 

4  4 

$772.00 

“  “  Brooklyn  . . . 

.  3*  •  ■ 

4  4 

i  4 

. ..  818.00 

$1,000  and  Less  Than  $2,000. 

Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan.  . 

.  54- •• 

4  4 

<  4 

.  .  .$1,390.00 

“  “  Brooklyn.... 

4  4 

4  4 

...  1,295.00 

$2,000  and  Less  Than  $4,000. 

Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan. . 

.  42. • . 

4  < 

4  4 

...$2,537.00 

“  “  Brooklyn... 

4  4 

4  4 

...  2,477.00 

$4,000  and  Less  Than  $6,000. 

Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan. . 

4  i 

4  4 

. .  .$4,556.00 

“  “  Brooklyn... 

4  4 

4  4 

.  .  .  4,585*oo 

Over  $6,000. 

Number  of  Schools,  Manhattan.  . 

4  4 

4  4 

••• $8,335-00 

9 


The  table  below  shows  the  cost  of  repairing  new  school  buildings  in  Manhattan.  This  is  about  twice 
the  average  allowance  for  repairing  old  buildings  in  Brooklyn. 

TABLE  No.  3:  COST  OF  GENERAL  REPAIRS:  NEW  SCHOOLS. 

First  Year  of 
Service, 

Year  Ending : 

July,  1899 

<  t  a 

i  <  <  ( 

u  <  < 

Dec.,  1899 

<  <  if 

a  a 

i  t  if, 

a  t  < 

a  a 

a  a 

a  a 

a  a 

Dec.,  1900 

a  a 

a  a 


The  account  of  General  Repairs  embodies  the  most  vicious  defects  possible  to  a  system  of  audit.  It 
lumps  together  in  one  inseparable  mass  outlays  that  should  be  differentiated  into  separate  accounts  of 
Construction,  Maintenance,  Operation,  Betterment,  Labor,  Materials,  Administration,  and  similar  group¬ 
ings.  Possibly  the  outlays  are  thus  separated  and  recorded  in  the  accounts  of  the  Board  of  Education. 
The  published  reports  of  that  body  do  not  indicate  it. 


ESTIMATES  FOR  1901. 

" - - - N 

Number 

Classrooms. 

SCHOOL. 

General 

Repairs. 

Sanitary. 

Heating. 

No.  42 . 

. $  385-. 

.  .  .$250 - 

. 42 

“  153 . 

...  150 - 

. 14  • 

“  158 . 

.  1,085.. 

.  15° . 

.  .  .  310 - 

.......48 

“  160 . 

.  1,585  •• 

.  J5° . 

.  .  .  300 - 

. 39 

“  157 . 

.  5°°- • 

.  575  . 

. 45 

“  165 . 

.  385.. 

.  185 . 

.  ..  300 - 

. 45 

“  166 . 

.  3,435  •• 

.  250 . 

. 39 

“  I59 . 

.  585*. 

.  250 . 

.  .  .  490 - 

. 48 

“  164 . 

.  650.. 

.  150 . 

. ..  225 - 

“  40 . 

.  585-- 

.  150 . 

. 29 

“  167 . 

.  i,5°0*  • 

.  150 . 

.  .  .  275 - 

. 30 

“  i73 . 

.  5°°  •• 

.  150 . 

. 30 

“  169 . 

.  5°°  •• 

.  *5° . 

.  ..  250 - 

. 30 

U  A  A . 

.  28  ^  . 

. .  IOO . 

. . .  IOO. . . . 

. 20 

“  174 . 

.  385.. 

.  150 . 

. 24 

“  109 . 

.  85.. 

.  i35 . 

...  50.... 

. 48 

IV.  FUEL  AND  LIGHTING. 

The  relatively  greater  outlay  in  Manhattan  for  fuel  and  lighting  indicates  waste.  A  comparison  in 
detail  is  required  to  exhibit  the  fact  and  locate  the  cause.  The  estimates  do  not  supply  details.  The 
Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  therefore  votes  the  lump  sums  asked  for  these  items  without 
effective  scrutiny.  The  following  letter  from  the  Department  of  Finance  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  on  that 
point  explains  itself : 

“Department  of  Finance,  City  of  New  York,  Dec.  10,  1900. 

“Mr.  Frederick  B.  De  Berard, 

“Care  of  The  Merchants’  Association  of  New  York, 

“New  York  Life  Building,  City. 

“  Dear  Sir: 

“Replying  to  your  communication  of  the  5th  inst.,  which  was  received  at  this  office  on  the  8th,  I  beg 
to  state  that  the  records  of  this  Department  do  not  show  the  cost  of  the  fuel  and  the  lighting  of  the  City 
schools,  separately. 


10 


‘  Payments  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  the  contractor  supplying  fuel  upon  the  usual  requisition 
from  the  Board  of  Education,  and  since  the  passage  of  the  Davis  law  payments  of  this  character  were 
made  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  Board  of  Education,  the  payments  on  account  of  lighting  being  made  in  a 
similar  manner. 

“An  examination  of  the  vouchers  on  file  in  this  department  for  payments  made  to  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  Davis  law  will  enable  you  to  determine  the  amount  expended  for  account  of  lighting  and 
fuel  in  the  several  schools. 

“The  amounts  appropriated  annually  for  account  of  Corporate  Schools  are  paid  to  them  in  lump 
sum-  “  Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  “  M.  T.  Daly, 

“Deputy  Comptroller.” 

V.  JANITOR  SERVICE. 

The  relative  outlay  for  Janitor  Service  in  Manhattan  and  Brooklyn  is  shown  by  the  following  table 
It  has  been  arranged  with  a  view  to  comparing  equivalents  of  capacity  so  far  as  they  can  be  gathered 
They  are  nowhere  collated  in  the  reports  or  estimates.  The  only  clues  are  afforded  by  the  number  of 
classrooms  and  the  average  attendance.  These  are  not  sufficient  for  exact  results.  In  the  present 
instance  they  suffice  to  show  that  the  scale  of  payment  to  janitors  is  uniformly  larger  in  Manhattan  than 
in  Brooklyn,  and  therefore  that  the  rate  paid  in  Manhattan  is  uniformly  higher: 


TABLE  NO.  4:  COMPARATIVE  COST  OF  JANITOR  SERVICE. 


No. 

Rooms. 

4.... 

4.... 

MANHATTAN. 

School 

No.  Salary. 

....I32....V....  $754..., 

- 134 -  533... 

No.  No. 

Scholars.  Rooms. 

.  73  4 . 

School 

No. 

...  69.. 
...  91.. 

a8 

BROOKLYN. 

Salary. 

.  475- • 

cfin 

No. 

Scholars 

.  8l 

.  251 

.  J . 

6. . . . 

. ...  1,326... 

.  198  6 . 

...  93.. 

.  530- • 

6.  . .  . 

.  ...  I 18 . 

.  . .  1,183.  •  • 

.  no  6 . 

...  95.. 

.  172 

6. . . . 

••••138 . 

....  1,170.... 

.  216  6 . 

...114.. 

.  470- • 

.  428 

8. .  .  . 

- I  12 . 

....  936.... 

.  385  6 . 

.  130- • 

8.  .  .  . 

••••M3 . 

. .  . .  845  ... 

to 

00 

vO 

00 

...  64.. 

.  775- •• 

.  71  I 

9.... 

••••  99 . 

.  .  .  1,092.  .  .  . 

.  202  8 . 

...  66.. 

.  705- • 

.  751 

10. . . . 

. . . .  24 . 

-  897 . . . . 

.  349  . 

10. . . . 

- 146 . 

....  1,547.... 

....  162  10 . 

...  67.. 

.  635-- 

.  >79 

11.... 

. . .  hi . 

...  871.... 

.  236  10 . 

00 

vji 

.  657 

11.... 

...  1,027 _ 

.  546  . 

11.... 

••••130 . 

...  988.... 

•  •  596  n . 

.  730... 

.  636 

12. . . . 

••••  52 . 

...  1,053.... 

••••  139  12 . 

...  8.. 

.  810. . . 

.  608 

12. . . . 

- 1 10 . 

....  1,131.... 

••••  747  12 . 

13.... 

••••  9i . 

...  1,495-  •  •  • 

....  528  12 . 

. . . 103. . 

.  780. . . 

13.... 

••••  95 . 

....  422  . 

1 3 . 150 .  1.833 . 1,002 


14. .. . 

•••  1.053 . 

...  524 

14. . . . 

••••  42 . 

860 .... 

14. . .. 

••••i>3 . 

•••  i,i44 . 

...  456 

14. . .. 

••••  52 . 

...  815.... 

.  ...  868 

14.... 

••••>>9 . 

...  1, 1 18 . 

...  507 

14.... 

••••  56 . 

LT\ 

00 

. . . .  804 

14.... 

. ...  124 . 

•••  767 . 

. . .  604 

14. .. . 

••••  59 . 

00 

VJ1 

>5 . 

••••  98 . 

•  ••  1,781 . 

...  653 

15.... 

- 101 . 

. ..  995.... 

15.... 

- 106 . 

■  •••  1,196 . 

. .  .  609 

MANHATTAN. 


No. 

Rooms. 

School 

No. 

Salary. 

No. 

Scholars. 

15.... 

....  1,053... 

.  623 

15.... 

-  1 , 209 - 

.  813 

l6. . . . 

....  1,625... 

.  539 

l6. . . . 

•  *  -  131 - 

-  858. . . . 

.  861 

l6. . . . 

....133.... 

.  .  .  .  1,664.  •  •  • 

....  728 

No. 

Rooms. 


School 

No. 


BROOKLYN. 

Salary. 


No. 

Scholars. 


17.... 

....  66.... 

. ...  1,807.... 

....  560 

17.... 

...  1,417.... 

....  450 

17.... 

....125 - 

. ...  1,404.... 

17.... 

....  1,430.... 

. . . .  770 

18.... 

....  44.... 

—  1,612. .. . 

....  858 

18.... 

••  •  65 . 

....  1,339.... 

18.... 

....  80 . 

....  1,274.... 

18.... 

- 104 . 

...  1,235.... 

. . . .  548 

18.... 

••••105 . 

....  1,885.... 

....  1,104 

18.... 

••••136 . 

. ...  1,170.... 

18.... 

•  •  •  •  1 52 . 

. ...  2,444.... 

00 

it-n 

20. . . . 

- 107 - - 

....  1,443.... 

.  ...  552 

21 ... . 

-  60 . 

....  1.599.... 

.  .  .  .  784 

21 ... . 

....  81 . 

. ...  1,989.... 

.  .  .  .  542 

21 ... . 

••••115 . 

...  1,521.... 

.  .  .  .1,051 

21 ... . 

—  1,482.... 

21 ... . 

••••155 . 

21 ... . 

••••156 . 

...  1,989.... 

....  883 

21 ... . 

•"•163 . 

....  858 

21 ... . 

. . . . 164 . 

—  2,288 _ 

....  75O 

23.... 

••••117 . 

. . .  1,612. . . . 

.  .  .  .  1,021 

23.... 

...  1,508.... 

.  .  .  .  1,01  I 

24.... 

••••  48 . 

...  1,716.... 

....  795 

24.... 

••••  64 . 

.  ...  1,138 

25.... 

. . . .  1,202 

25.... 

. ...  1,508.... 

....1,056 

25.... 

....  45.... 

....  1,326.... 

....  914 

25.... 

••••  92 . 

. ..  1,924.... 

..  ..1,438 

26  ... . 

••••  55 . 

. ...  1,625 - 

27.... 

••••  3i . 

....  1,391.... 

. . . .  1,286 

27  ...  . 

. . . . 121 . 

. . . .  2,028. . . . 

....  1,362 

16. . . . 

....  830 

16. . . . 

••••  47 . 

.  ..  845.... 

16 . 

■•••  50 . 

.  ..  740.... 

....  713 

16. ... . 

57 . 

...  1,173 - 

.  .  .  .  924 

16. . . . 

••••  58 . 

.  ..  1,045.... 

....  815 

16 _ 

...  955.... 

16)  ... 

. ...  89) 

,6... 

••••i»373 

16 _ _ 

-  98 . : . . . 

...  1,140.... 

....  369 

17 . 

•••  38 . 

...  925.... 

....  717 

18.... 

LTs 

T 

00 

....1,474 

18. . . . 

••••  29 . 

••'•  945- ••• 

. ...  748 

l8  i  * ' 

9)  .. 

....  41  j. 

.  .  .  .  80  f 

...  1,025.... 

. . . .  1,276 

18.... 

••••  79 . 

...  1,175.... 

....1,333 

18. . . . 

••••  94 . 

. ...  959 

18.... 

••••ii7 . 

.  ...1,325 

I9.... 

••••  63 . 

...  735.... 

....  596 

20. . . . 

••••  49 . 

...  965.... 

. . . .  1,093 

20. . . . 

••••  5i . 

...  1,155.... 

. . . .  1,225 

20. . . . 

••••  65 . 

. . .  1,185.  •  •  • 

....  978 

20. . . . 

••••  7i . 

...  1,155.... 

....1,330 

21  ...  . 

. . . .  28 . 

...  940.... 

....1,389 

21  ...  . 

••••  54 . 

...  1,150 - 

. . . .  1,244 

23.... 

....  4 - 

....  1,365.... 

....1,308 

23.... 

••••  14 . 

. . . .  980 _ 

....  987 

24.... 

....  6 . 

...  1 , 1 60 - 

24 ... . 

••••  7 . 

....  1,055.... 

....  958 

24 ... . 

••••  74 . 

...  1,560.... 

....  1,167 

24.... 

••••  76 . 

. . .  1,420 - 

....1,275 

24.... 

••••  78 . 

...  1,400 - 

. . . .  1,201 

24 ... . 

....  82 . 

...  1,360.... 

....1,411 

24.... 

••••  83 . 

...  1,360.... 

....1,450 

24.... 

••••  87 . 

...  1,460 - 

....1,570 

24.... 

....  88 . 

...  1,460 _ 

25.... 

- 107 . 

...  1,775.  •  •  • 

. . . .  1,426 

26 ... . 

••••  9 . 

. .  . .  1,028 

26. . . . 

•  •  •  •  46 . 

...  1,320.... 

. . ..  1,386 

26 ... . 

••••113 . 

, ...  1,560.... 

. . ..  1,320 

27.... 

••••  39 . 

.  ..  1,130..  .. 

....1,338 

12 


MANHATTAN. 


BROOKLYN. 


I 


V 


t 


J 


No. 

Rooms. 

School 

No. 

Salary. 

No. 

Scholars. 

27 . 

....  2,  158.  .  . 

. 1,230 

28 . 

. ..  8..  .. 

....  1,950... 

. 1,340 

28 . 

....  1,768... 

. I,l8l 

28 . 

.  .  .  .  1,91  I  .  .  . 

. 1,038 

28 . 

. ..  41. . .  . 

....  1,456... 

. 1,151 

28 . 

...  56... 

....  1,547... 

28 . 

. . . 141 - 

....  1,586.... 

. 1,360 

28 . 

-  1,560... 

. 1,448 

29 . 

...  27.... 

29 . 

...38.... 

....  1,534... 

. 1,283 

29 . 

...  50.... 

....  1,677... 

29 . 

...  82.... 

. 1,836 

29 . 

. 1,322 

29 . 

.  .  .  .  3,406.  .  . 

30 . 

- 3,640... 

. 2,576 

30 . 

....  1,547  •  •  •  • 

. 1,254 

30 . 

..  23.... 

. 1,575 

30 . 

...  40.... 

....  3,380... 

. 1,058 

30 . 

. . . 167. . . . 

....  3,562... 

....  379 

30 . 

...173.... 

....  3,276.... 

31 . 

...  7 3.... 

....  1,833.... 

....  1,409 

32 . 

...  39.... 

....  1,603 

33.. .. 

....  63.,.. 

. . . .  3,601 . . . . 

. .  . .  1,064 

33"” 

....  75.... 

. .  . .  2, 106. . . . 

....1,787 

33"" 

....  84.... 

. . . .  2,054. .  . . 

....1,704 

34.. .. 

. .  . .  1 . . . . 

. ...  3,887.... 

....2,325 

34.... 

....  36.... 

. ...  1,703.... 

. . . .  1,871 

34 - 

••••151 . 

. . . .  2,561 . . . . 

....1,478 

35.... 

••••  7i . 

. ...  1,703.... 

. . . .  1,522 

36.... 

••••  32 . 

—  1,989 - 

....1,762 

36.... 

••••  67 . 

....  2,873.... 

. . . .  867 

31"" 

••••  3 . 

. ...  1,937.... 

. . . .  1,728 

31"" 

••••  9 . 

. ...  3,432.... 

. . . .  1,005 

31"" 

••••  42 . 

. . .  4,056. . . . 

31 . 

••••  78 . 

...  2,171 - 

....1,719 

38.... 

••••  58 . 

....  2,353.... 

....1,559 

38.... 

. . . .  61 . 

....1,784 

38.... 

••••  72 . 

...  2,574.... 

....2,363 

38.... 

••••  76 . 

No.  School 

Rooms.  No.  Salary. 


No. 

Scholars 


28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 


29 

29 


1 . . . . 

94 ... . 

....  1,055 

.  .  .  .  1  3^0 

.xi 

68. . . . 

1 oq . . . . 

.  .  .  .  I  ^60 

1 10. . . . 

.  .  .  .  1  ^60 

1 16. . . . 

.  ...  1,670 

18. . . . 

1 18 ... . 

00  to 

00  00 

O 

1,077 

*>579 

I,QI2 

2,088 


1,163 

1,882 


30.... 

....  1,325.... 

. . . .  1,231 

30.... 

...  24.... 

• ...  1,395.... 

....1,758 

30. . . . 

...  86.... 

-  1,410 - 

....1,597 

31.... 

••••  85 . 

1,410. . . . 

. . . .  1,698 

31 .... 

1,370.... 

....1,134 

32.... 

1,505.... 

....1,364 

32.... 

. . . .  12 . 

1,320. . . . 

••••!, 437 

32 ... . 

••••  25 . 

1,375.... 

....1,411 

32 ... . 

••••  27 . 

1,425.... 

32.... 

••••  30 . 

1,460. . . . 

....1,350 

32.... 

••••  31 . 

1,285.  •  •  • 

....1,430 

32.... 

••••  45 . 

1,675.... 

....1,544 

32.... 

••••  70 . 

1,060. . . . 

. . . .  1,068 

32 ...  • 

••••  75 . 

1 , 1 60 ... . 

....1,377 

33"  " 

••••  1 3 . 

1,320. . . . 

••..1,454 

33"" 

••••  19 . 

1,270.. .. 

....1,724 

33"" 

••••  32 . 

1,420. . . . 

....1,947 

35"" 

...  5.... 

...  1,410.  .. 

35"" 

...  7 2.... 

...  1,875.... 

....1,573 

36. . . . 

•••  17 . 

....i,744 

36 . 

...  33 . 

...  1,320.... 

36.... 

•••  40 . 

...  1,730.... 

38 . 

...  1,840.... 

....1,945 

38 . 

•••  53 . 

...  1,055.... 

....1,450 

58 . 

•••  55 . 

...  1,955-... 

13 


MANHATTAN. 


BROOKLYN. 


No. 

Rooms. 

School 

No. 

Salary. 

No. 

Scholars. 

39 . 

.  .  28 . 

....1,529 

39 . 

••  46 . 

...  4.472.... 

.  .  .  .2,2S6 

40 . 

••  15 . 

.  .  .  1,651.  .  .  . 

....1,599 

4i . 

••  43 . 

....1,938 

42 . 

.  .  6 . 

...  3.341.... 

42 . 

. .  22 . 

...  1,976 - 

...  .2,107 

42 . 

••  30 . 

...  3,484.... 

.  .  .  .  1,809 

42 . 

••  37 . 

•  2,743.... 

....1,565 

42 . 

••  49 . 

.  .  .  2,470.  .  .  . 

....  1,763 

42 . 

..  51.:... 

.  .  .  2,  106 _ 

.  .  .  .  1,936 

42 . 

...  3,380.... 

....2,247 

43 . 

••  33 . 

...  2,584.... 

.  .  .  .2,017 

43 . 

..  68 . 

.  ..  1,586.... 

....1,958 

44 . 

••  4 . 

.  .  .  2,  106  ...  . 

.  .  .  .2,890 

44 . 

••  53 . 

.  .  .  2,301  .  .  .  . 

....1,939 

44 . 

••  74 . 

...  2,457.... 

.  .  .  .2,009 

44 . 

••103 . 

.  ..  3,887 - 

.  .  .  .2,654 

45 . 

..  18 . 

...  1,859.... 

....1,833 

45 . 

••  34 . 

...  2,756.... 

....2,444 

45 . 

..  86 . 

*  45 . 

••157 . 

.  ..  4,  147.  .  .  . 

. ...  1,165 

45 . 

••165 . 

.  ..  4,992 - 

•  •  ■  • 1  >353 

46 . 

••  35 . 

...  1,729.... 

....i,473 

46 . 

••  42 . 

.  ..  4,056 - 

46 . 

••  54 . 

.  ..  3,029 - 

...  .2,214 

46 . 

••  70 . 

.  .  .  2,015.  ■  ■  • 

. .  . .  1,840 

47..  .  . 

. .  10 . 

..  .  4,056 - 

....2,932 

47 . 

••  59 . 

...  i,755-  -  •  - 

....1,939 

47 . 

••  69 . 

. . .  2,548. . . . 

. . . .  1,619 

47 . 

...  3,783.... 

. . . .  2,072 

48 . 

. . .  4,121 - 

...  .3,108 

48 . 

••158 . 

. ..  4,524. . . . 

. . . .  1,629 

48 . 

••159 . 

...  4,784. . . . 

. . . .  854 

49 . 

••  5 . 

. . .  4,420. . . 

49 . 

••  85 . 

. . .  3,081 - 

....2,357 

49 . 

...  3,588.... 

49 . 

••154 . 

. ..  3,835.... 

....2,395 

5i . 

••  7 . 

...  2,795.... 

. . .  .2,619 

5i . 

••  57 . 

...  2,717.... 

53 . 

••  17 . 

. ..  1,859.... 

.  ...2,075 

53 . 

••  19 . 

...  3,185.... 

....2,585 

54 . 

••  14 . 

...  3,497 . .  •  • 

55 . 

••  93 . 

...  4,407. . . . 

. . .  .2,618 

56 . 

••  13 . 

...  3,276.... 

....2,357 

58 . 

••  77 . 

. ..  3,250.... 

60 . 

••  25 . 

. . .  2,769 - 

....2,733 

No. 

Rooms. 

39 . 

School 

No. 

••  73 . 

Salary. 

No. 

Scholars. 

...1,991 

40 . 

..84 . 

.  .  1,895...  • 

.  .  .  1,646 

42 . 

••  15 . 

•.  i,76° . 

...1,790 

42 . 

••  3 1 . 

••  '.835 . 

.  .  .  1,803 

43.... 

..  1,625.... 

. . .  .2,083 

43  •• 

••••  43 . 

..  2,505.... 

. . . .  3,092 

44.... 

••••  3 . 

. .  2,240. . . . 

. ...  2, 146 

44.... 

••••  77 . 

..  1,950.... 

. . . .2,260 

44.... 

. . . . 10S . 

. .  2,095. . . . 

.  . .  .  1,867 

47 .  10 .  1, 880 . 2,610 


48 .  44 .  2,350 . 2,354 


49 .  35 .  2»225 . 2,645 


50.... 

••••  23 . 

. .  . .  2,200. . . . 

51.... 

. . .  .2,346 

53.... 

.  . . .  26 . 

, ...  2,445.... 

. . .  .2,632 

14 


The  estimates  for  school  supplies  are  in  effect  deduced  from  a  per  capita  basis,  multiplied  by  the  num¬ 
ber  of  pupils.  The  provisions  of  Sections  59  and  62  of  the  By-laws  arrange  for  standards  of  quantity  per 
scholar,  a  per  capita  record  of  value,  and  a  report  of  annual  aggregate  outlay,  and  average  attendance  as 
nearly  as  it  can  be  ascertained.  There  are  no  data  in  the  Budget  or  reports  that  enable  the  Board  of  Esti¬ 
mate  and  Apportionment  to  test  the  validity  of  the  per  capita  cost.  Hence  the  last  appropriation  is  the 
accepted  basis  ;  and  as  the  per  capita  allowance  for  new  scholars  is  also  a  settled  factor,  the  only  detail 
actually  subject  to  question  is  the  probable  number  of  new  pupils  next  year.  The  following  table  exhibits 
the  data  relating  to  the  supply  account,  as  deduced  from  the  official  reports.  Neither  the  aggregates  nor 
the  average  per  capita  amounts  are  presented,  and  it  requires  patience  and  industry  to  so  collate  them. 


x 


V 


J 


» 


7 


TABLE  No.  5. 

AVERAGE  ATTENDANCE  AS  A  PER 
CAPITA  BASIS  FOR  SUPPLIES. 


Average  Attendance  for  Preceding  Year. 

Manhattan: 

July,  1898,  Number  reported  for  apportionment .  199,261 

Dec.,  1898,  “  “  “  supplies .  209,090 

July,  1899,  “  “  “  apportionment .  222,093 

Dec.,  1899,  “  “  “  supplies .  231,277 

July,  1900,  “  “  “  apportionment .  220,039 

Dec.,  1900,  “  for  whom  supplies  were  allowed .  231,277 

July,  1901,  “  “  apportionment,  estimated  at  normal  rate  of 

increase .  226,639 

Dec.,  1901,  Number  for  whom  supplies  are  asked,  on  basis  of  1900,  plus 

estimated  increase .  253,277 

Brooklyn : 

July  1898,  Number  reported  for  apportionment .  124,694 

Dec.,  1898,  “  “  “  supplies .  126,900 

July,  1899,  “  “  “  apportionment .  127,916 

Dec.,  1899,  “  “  “  supplies .  153,831 

July,  1900,  “  “  “  apportionment .  130, 131 

Dec.,  1900,  “  for  whom  supplies  were  allowed .  153,831 

July,  1901,  “  “  apportionment,  estimated  at  normal  rate  of 

increase .  133,901 

Dec.,  1901,  Number  for  whom  supplies  are  asked,  on  basis  of  1900,  plus 

estimated  increase . 168,551 


The  above  exhibit  shows  that  the  annual  attendance  averages  of  the  fiscal  year,  upon  which  the  appro¬ 
priations  for  supplies  are  granted,  are  much  larger  than  the  annual  attendance  averages  of  the  school  year. 
On  the  basis  of  the  estimates  of  the  current  Budget,  Brooklyn  would  get  supplies  for  at  least  35,000  more 
pupils  than  the  actual  number.  A  study  of  comparative  per  capita  outlays  will  shed  light  on  the  cause. 


15 


AGGREGATE  AND  PER  CAPITA. 

{Supplies  only.) 


MANHATTAN.  Per  Cap.  BROOKLYN.  Per  Cap- 

1898  . $454,h8 . $2.17  1898 . $214,695 . $1.69 

1899  . 498,469 .  2.15  1890 .  282,958 .  1.84 

I9°° .  498,469 .  2.15  1900 .  282,958 .  1.84 

I9°I .  602,166 .  1901 .  372,739 . 

In  every  previous  instance  the  gross  amount  of  the  previous  year’s  appropriation  for  supplies  has  been 
accepted  as  a  basis  for  the  next  year’s  estimate.  That  rule  is  departed  from  in  the  present  Budget,  in  the 
case  of  Brooklyn.  The  quantities  of  the  various  kinds  of  supplies  required  are  stated.  The  cost  of  supplies 
for  153,831  pupils  during  the  present  fiscal  year  was  $282,958.  To  supply  an  equal  number  about  $330,000 
is  asked.  It  is  significant  that  when  reduced  to  a  per  capita  basis  the  amount  per  scholar  is  $2.15,  exactly 
the  amount  that  has  been  the  basis  in  New  York  for  several  years. 


On  pages  1398  and  1399  of  the  printed  Budget  will  be  found  the  estimates  for  supplies  required  for 
Manhattan  schools  during  the  year  1901.  The  amount  stated  to  be  necessary  is  $631,817.08 — an  increase 
of  $131,817.08.  Under  Sec.  59,  By-Laws  Board  of  Education  (cited  above),  $500,000.00  of  this  amount  is 
not  subject  to  question;  “it  goes’’  without  scrutiny.  Only  the  increase  is  examined.  Some  of  the 
details  are  as  follows: 


New  Schools  and  Additions  to  be  opened  during  the  year  1901 _ 

No.  178 — 18  Classrooms. 

No.  182 — 24  “ 

No.  186 — 48  “ 

To  provide  these  new  pupils  with  books  and  other  supplies  an  allowance  of  $3.38^  per  capita  is 
asked,  making  an  aggregate  of  $13,709.25. 

The  plans  for  these  schools  were  not  finished  until  late  last  year;  they  were  not  authorized  or  con¬ 
tracted  for  until  the  present  year,  and  they  cannot  be  ready  for  occupancy  until  1902.  The  completion  and 
occupancy  of  a  number  of  additions,  kindergartens,  workshops,  gymnasiums  and  kitchens  are  likewise 
assumed,  and  requisition  is  made  for  supplies.  The  details  should  be  stated  in  the  report  for  1900,  which 
the  statute  requires  the  Board  of  Education  to  make  to  the  Mayor  under  date  of  July  31st.  That  report 
was  not  made  until  after  December  1st;  it  has  not  been  printed;  a  copy  was  asked  for  but  could  not  be 
obtained;  hence  the  desired  details  cannot  be  readily  learned.  The  following  items  must  therefore  be 
taken  on  trust: 


90  Classrooms. 

■Av.  45  Pupils 

per  Room.  New  pupils 


,4,050 


New  Schools  and  Additions.  Seating  capacity,  10,395  pupils,  at  $3,383^ 

5  Gymnasiums  at  $600 . 

5  Workshops  at  $550 . 

5  Kitchens  at  $450 . 

15  Kindergartens  at  $250...: . 

Increased  Attendance,  High  Schools . 

Summer  Schools,  Playgrounds,  Etc . 

Truant  Schools . 

Increase  in  Attendance  at  Old  Schools,  7,500  pupils,  at  $1.38 . 


.  $35,817.08 

$3,000.00 
2,750.00 
2, 250.00 

3,750.00—  1 1,750.00 
25,000.00 
15,000.00 
5, 780.00 
10,350.00 


Total  Increase  for  Supplies  for  New  Scholars . 

Nearly  40  per  cent,  of  the  scholars  assumed  by  the  first  item  are  non-existent. 


$103,697.08 


The  average  cost  of  supplies  per  scholar,  as  shown  by  preceding  tables,  was  in  1899  $2.15  in  Manhattan 
and  $1.83  in  Brooklyn.  The  item  for  High  Schools  is  on  the  basis  of  57  per  cent,  increase  in  two  years  ; 
and  the  estimate  for  salaries  and  cartage  is  raised  from  $18,449  in  1899  to  $28,750  in  1901. 

16 


\ 


> 


the  close  of  the  school  year  July,  1899,  the  school  records  of  this  City  showed  an  abnormally  large 
enrollment,  attendance  and  capacity.  Manhattan  not  only  had  more  pupils  in  proportion  to  population 
than  other  cities,  but  it  had  seemingly  more  accommodation  for  them.  The  analysis  of  average  attend¬ 
ance  in  the  next  section  will  show  the  bearing  of  these  conditions  upon  the  outlays  for  supplies  and  for 
new  schoolhouses. 


The  obvious  intent  of  Sec.  62,  By-Laws  Board  of  Education,  is  to  provide  for  a  practically  uniform 
distribution  of  supplies — that  scholars  and  schools  having  like  needs  shall  receive  equal  quantities.  It 
therefore  requires  that  supplies  shall  be  distributed  pro  rata  according  to  a  fixed  schedule  or  tariff  which 
shall  not  be  exceeded.  To  guard  against  wastefulness,  Sec.  59  requires  that  the  aggregate  amount  shall 
be  stated  in  an  annual  report,  in  comparison  with  the  outlay  of  the  previous  year  ;  and  that  the  cost  per 
pupil  shall  be  stated. 


The  purpose  of  these  sections  is  to  provide  a  fixed  standard  of  outlay  and  check  waste  by  reports  that 
shall  expose  it  by  comparison.  Although  the  detached  data  are  set  forth  in  the  reports,  they  are  wholly 
undigested  and  are  not  utilized  as  intended.  Unless  classified  and  exhibited  in  comparative  form,  they  are 
useless;  and  they  are  not  so  exhibited.  Only  a  superficial  and  uncertain  comparison  can  be  made.  It 
shows  that  the  per  capita  outlay  for  school  supplies  in  Manhattan  is  uniformly  much  larger  than  in  Brooklyn 
for  corresponding  classes  of  scholars.  It  also  shows  extreme  variations  in  the  per  capita  cost  not  only  for 
identical  grades  in  the  different  schools  of  Manhattan,  but  also  in  comparative  annual  cost  of  identical 
grades  in  the  same  school.  Reports  which  will  permit  accurate  comparison  of  complete  data  are  desirable. 


VII.  SCHOOL  ACCOMMODATIONS. 

The  outlays  for  public  schools  in  this  city  are  based  primarily  upon  the  school  records  of  attendance  ; 
^  upon  estimates  of  the  school  population  for  which  sittings  must  be  provided,  and  upon  the  shifting  of 

established  population  into  new  areas  previously  settled  but  sparsely. 

In  1890,  according  to  the  data  of  the  U.  S.  Census,  the  proportion  of  children  of  school  age  to  total 
population  was  smaller  in  this  city  than  in  the  other  cities  of  the  State,  and  the  proportion  of  private  and 
sectarian  school  attendance  was  greater.  Therefore,  the  proportion  of  the  population  for  which  public 
school  facilities  were  required  was  relatively  smaller  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn  than  elsewhere.  The 
relative  school  demands  and  facilities  of  the  several  cities  were  as  follows  : 

Population  Dependent  on  Public  Schools,  1890. 

For  Each  1,000  of  Total  Population  : 

Manhattan  :  Children  dependent  on  public  schools . 

Brooklyn  :  Children  dependent  on  public  schools . 

All  other  cities  of  the  State  :  Children  dependent  on  public  schools 

Pupils  Enrolled  and  Provided  for  in  Each  1,000 
Children  Dependent  on  Public  Schools  : 

Manhattan . 

Brooklyn . 

j  All  other  cities  of  State,  average . 

In  1890,  therefore,  this  city’s  school  accommodations  were  relatively  greater  than  those  of  any  other 
j  city  in  the  State,  and  the  proportion  of  public  school  population  to  the  total  relatively  smaller.  Table  7 

below  shows  that  since  1890  the  public  school  population  of  this  city  has  apparently  increased  in  much 
greater  proportion  than  elsewhere  throughout  the  State. 


228 

225 

245.6 


573 

579 

559 


17 


INCREASED  DEMANDS  FOR  PUBLIC 
SCHOOL  FACILITIES. 


Manhattan : 

Total 

Population. 

School  Population. 

5  to  17 

Years  Inclusive. 
(23.98  per  ct.) 

School  Population. 
Dependent  on 
Public  Schools. 
(22.80  per  ct.) 

Public  School 
Enrollment. 

Pupils 
per  M. 
Public 
School 
Pop’n. 

1890 . 

•  i.SiS.3oi.. 

.. ..  363,369.. . 

•  • •  345,488 - 

••  197,945-  •• 

•  •  •  573 

On 

On 

CO 

w 

.  1,989,082 .  . 

-  476,976.  .  • 

-  -  -  453,510 - 

. .  320,291 . . . , 

Increase . 

•  473,78i.. 

-  113,607... 

••  122,346 - 

i33 

“  per  ct. 

. 31.28.. 

. 3!-28.  .  . 

. 31*28 - 

. 6l.8o  ...  . 

>  .  • 

Brooklyn: 

(24.10  per  ct.) 

(22.5  per  ct.) 

1890 . 

838,547.. 

579 

1899 . 

.  1, 130,000 . . 

-  272,330... 

•••  254,250 - 

••  183,650... 

Increase . 

•  29I,453  •  • 

-  70,242 - 

.  ..  63,061 - 

. ..  143 

“  per  ct. 

. 34-  7.5  •  • 

. 34-75  -  ■ 

. 34-75  - 

. 65.36 - 

»  .  • 

Other  Cities: 

(24.56  per  ct.) 

1890 . 

801,378.. 

.  .  I  10,000  .  .  . 

•••  559 

1899 . 

969,072.. 

•••  237,986 - 

..  156,957... 

. ..  659 

Increase . 

167,694.. 

•  •  46,957---' 

per  ct, 


20. 92 . 20. 92 . 30. 56 .  . 


The  foregoing  table  seems  to  show  that  this  city  now  has  nearly  25  per  cent,  more  pupils  in  proportion 
to  population  than  it  had  in  1890;  and  that  for  a  given  population  at  least  five  schoolhouses  are  now 
required  where  four  formerly  sufficed.  Coincident  with  the  large  increase  in  the  proportion  of  public 
school  pupils  has  been  a  rapid  increase  of  population;  and  upon  the  unusual  demands  due  to  these  has  been 
cumulated  another  whose  extent  and  disturbing  influence  is  not  generally  understood.  This  arises  from  the 
shifting  of  population  and  the  rapid  peopling  of  large  suburban  areas,  lately  farm  lands  and  with  only 
cross-roads  schoolhouses.  In  the  Borough  of  the  Bronx,  in  Queens,  and  in  all  the  outlying  wards  in 
Brooklyn,  the  dearth  of  school  facilities  has  for  two  or  three  years  been  almost  a  public  disaster. 

In  the  year  1899  this  city  provided  $8,920,587  for  new  schools,  sites  and  buildings  and  their  equipment. 
During  the  two  school  years  ending  July,  1898,  and  July,  1899,  provision  was  made  for  twenty-nine  new 
schoolhouses  and  additions  in  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx  containing  55,000  seats.  Being 
unable  to  obtain  the  official  report  for  the  year  ending  July,  1900,  I  cannot  state  whether  others  were 
provided  for  in  that  year.  A  large  number  of  plans  were  in  progress  and  many  sites  had  been  previously 
bought  or  contracted  for.  Probably  more  than  thirty  of  the  new  buildings  and  additions  have  already  been 
completed.  By  the  end  of  1901  the  completion  of  the  improvements  now  in  progress  will  have  provided 
at  least  60,000  new  seats  during  the  years  1898,  1899,  1900  and  1901. 

A  still  further  great  increase  in  the  number  of  school  buildings  and  seating  capacity  is  urged,  for  which 
an  enormous  outlay  is  projected. 

The  situation  has  certainly  been,  and  still  is,  a  very  difficult  and  trying  one;  but  whatever  the  difficul¬ 
ties  and  however  pressing  the  need  the  conditions  should  be  fully  understood  by  the  people  of  this  city 
before  more  money  is  voted  for  more  new  schoolhouses.  The  map  herewith  has  been  prepared  to  show 
the  distribution  of  population,  the  school  population  and  the  school  facilities  of  each  school  district;  the 
location  of  all  old  schools  and  their  capacity,  and  finally  the  location  of  the  schools  completed  within  the 
past  two  or  three  years,  those  now  in  process  of  construction  or  contracted  for  and  building  sites  lately 
bought. 

The  map  and  the  tables  therewith  show  that  the  vast  outlay  of  the  past  few  years  for  school  buildings 


18 


located  in  close  proximity  to  each  other  in  areas  alrel^'kaWn^ 
ctht.es,  while  other  sections  whose  needs  are  extreme  have  been  left  unprovided  for  This  subject  will 

ingraP„Tsheswm  “e  fn.T  ^  Wh“  ""  O""*10"  °f  **  “*  <*  -en,  school  build- 

This  topic  is  now  touched  upon  only  for  the  purpose  of  separating  the  righteous  cause  of  new  schools 
whtch  ,s  a  most  press, ng  and  worthy  one,  from  the  cause  of  the  vicious  and "inaccurate ^reports  lf  school 

needed  new  sthoX  ""  ^  ““  **  WaStefU'  °“tIayS'  which  if  would  soon  pay  for  the 

of  moreTchool6  *  7hT  ^  Sh°Wing  °f  Tab,e  5  «  a  valid  argument,  showing  the  need 

of  more  schools.  The  purpose  of  that  table,  and  those  that  follow,  is  to  exhibit  the  official  basis  of  this 

that  the  dat  °uUays;  t0  show  that  11  is  disproportionately  large  in  comparison  with  that  of  other  cities 
that  the  data  upon  which  it  rests  are  misleading  and  untrustworthy,  and  that  those  which  relate  to  sup’ 
plies  are  inaccurate  and  indicate  large  waste.  P' 

The  number  of  pupils  enrolled  is  no  safe  index  of  the  number  of  seats  required  Evening  schools 

tTan seattsh  of the 3a°r different 

schools,  and  the  attendance  is  less  than  one-third  o^ 

vacation  schools  cooking  schools  and  various  “fads”  for  special  students.  Whether  the  enrollment  and 
en  anceof  these  is  included  in  the  aggregates  cannot  be  learned  from  the  official  reports  For  the 
most  part  they  do  not  need  special  facilities  in  excess  of  those  provided  for  day  scholars  t' effect  the 
maximum  attendance  of  day  scholars  (generally  reached  in  October  and  November)  shows  the  minimum 
number  of  seats  required,  provided  the  seats  are  where  the  pupils  are.  The  reports  of  the  Board  of 
Education  do  not  supply  the  needed  data.  All  that  can  be  learned  from  them  as  to  relative  school  clpac 

^“rus^part^ oul“af  /“"T"8'  ^  data  aad  detach«*  ^ 

stated :  P  °  an"Ual  rep0rts  and  the  current  0*dal  budget.  The  source  of  each  citation  is 


TABLE  No.  8. 

RELATIVE  INCREASE  OF  SEATING 
CAPACITY  AND  ATTENDANCE 
AND  RELATIVE  RENT  CHARGES,' 
MANHATTAN  AND  BRONX. 


July,  1898, 


December,  1900. 


New 

Seats. 

Total 

Seats. 

Average  Day 
Attendance' 

I  2,069  •  • 

220,931 . . 

.  .  .  (d) 

186,990. 

•••(*) 

233,000.  .  . 

...(e) 

209,  6q2  . 

15,000  .. 

.  .  . . (c) 

248,000 . .  . 

••(/) 

207,638. 

19,000  .  . 

267,000  .  .  . 

213,866 . , 

Rents, 

Schools. 


5,526  (1899) 


••  92,I03(l90l) 

Nnmhpr  of  luV/iCi*sc . . . Seats,  46,069;  attendance,  26,876 

umber  of  seats  in  excess  of  average  attendance .  ^000 

Number  of  pupils  per  1  000  seats  J,0 

—  .  oOI 


Estimated  on  basis  of  3  per  cent,  annual 


increase  in  population. 


{a)  iveporc  jooara  oi  education,  1099,  page  10:  ^‘During  the  past  school  year  (ending  July,  1899) 
eight  new  school  buildings  have  been  opened  in  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx,  containing  260  class¬ 
rooms  and  providing  room  for  about  12,000  pupils.” 

(b)  Report  Board  of  Education,  1899,  page  16. 

( c )  Report  of  Board  of  Education,  1899,  page  10:  “A  number  of  schoolhouses  contracted  for  prior 

to  consolidation  *  *  *  are  now  approaching  completion  in  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and 

the  Bronx,  and  will  be  ready  for  occupancy  at  or  soon  after  the  opening  of  the  school  year  in 
September  next”  (1899). 

{d)  No  aggregate  given  in  official  reports.  Number  obtained  by  adding  255  separate  items,  con¬ 
tained  on  pages  55  to  64  inclusive,  Report  Board  of  Education,  1898. 

(e)  Aggregate  of  detailed  items,  pages  52  to  57  inclusive,  Report  of  Board  of  Education,  1899.  On 
page  16  the  average  daily  attendance  is  stated  as  202, 133.  This  number  does  not  conform  to 
the  sum  of  the  separate  items  in  the  schedules  on  pages  52  to  57. 

(/)  Page  976,  Official  Budget  for  1901,  of  which  but  11  copies  were  printed.  It  states  that  the 
aggregate  number  of  days  of  attendance  at  Manhattan  public  schools  for  the  previous  school 
year  was  42,027, 584.  The  day  attendance  and  evening  attendance  is  not  segregated,  nor  the 
number  of  session  days  stated.  The  average  number  was  deducted  after  the  necessary  factors 
had  been  otherwise  obtained. 

It  appears  from  the  foregoing  data  that  the  number  of  sittings  available  keeps  well  ahead  of  the 
demand  for  them.  During  the  last  school  year,  although  about  15,000  new  seats  were  supplied,  the 
attendance  was  less  than  in  the  previous  year.  These  new  facilities  have  not  largely  displaced  rented 
premises.  In  1899,  when  the  rent  charge  in  Manhattan  was  about  $88,000,  the  President  of  the  Board  of 
Education  pointed  out  that  the  construction  of  new  schoolhouses  would  materially  lessen  that  charge. 
About  30  new  schoolhouses  and  additions  with  from  45,000  to  50,000  seats  have  been  added  during  the 
past  three  years;  nevertheless  over  $92,000  is  wanted  for  rents  during  next  year.  Admitting  tliC  urgent 
need  of  new  schools  the  facts  set  forth  seem  to  indicate  that  those  provided  have  not  been  judiciously 
located  at  the  points  of  congestion  or  deficiency.  It  should  not  be  inferred  that  new  schools  are  not 
required,  because  some  new  schools  may  have  been  put  in  inaecoooibic  pieces.  There  ars  many  sections 
where  new  schools  are  urgently  needed. 


